President Barack Obama marked Monday’s 20th anniversary of the landmark anti-discrimination law for people with disabilities by promising to boost government efforts at recruiting, hiring and retaining people with physical and mental limitations.

In a sun-splashed ceremony on the White House South Lawn, the President signed an executive order requiring the federal personnel agency to develop model guidelines for hiring people with disabilities, and announced a series of other measures:

- The Justice Department is publishing new rules to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities by more than 80,000 state and local government agencies and 7 million private businesses.

- Beginning in 2012, all new construction must meet enhanced design standards for doors, windows, elevators and bathrooms. The requirement covers everything from stores and restaurants to schools, stadiums, hospitals, hotels and theaters.

- New federal rules are being drafted to ensure people with disabilities better access to websites.

DOWNLOAD ADA Guide for Small Towns

A 25-page guide that presents an informal overview of some basic ADA requirements and provides cost-effective tips on how small towns can comply with the ADA.

DOWNLOAD ADA Guide: Common Problems Faced By City Governments

A 9-page document that contains a sampling of common problems shared by city governments of all sizes, provides examples of common deficiencies and explains how these problems affect persons with disabilities.

DOWNLOAD ADA Guide: Making Community Emergency Preparedness Accessible

An 11-page document that contains essential guidelines to one of the most important roles of government: protecting all of its citizenry from harm. Making local government emergency preparedness and response programs accessible to people with disabilities is a critical part of this responsibility and mandated by ADA law.

DOWNLOAD Title II Highlights

ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MATERIALS ON WWW.ADA.GOV

The President Calls Status Quo ‘Morally Inexcusable, Economically Indefensible’

 On July 29, 2010 at the National Urban League’s Centennial Convention, President Obama delivered a candid address on education reform, challenging critics of his “Race To The Top” Program by calling the status quo “morally inexcusable” and “economically indefensible.”

 ”It’s an economic issue when the unemployment rate for folks who’ve never gone to college is almost double what it is for those who have gone to college. It’s an economic issue when eight in 10 new jobs will require workforce training or a higher education by the end of this decade.  It’s an economic issue when countries that out-educate us today are going to out-compete us tomorrow.

“Now, for years, we’ve recognized that education is a prerequisite for prosperity.  And yet, we’ve tolerated a status quo where America lags behind other nations.  Just last week, we learned that in a single generation, America went from number one to 12th in college completion rates for young adults.  Used to be number one, now we’re number 12. 

“At the same time, our 8th graders trail about eight — 10 other nations — 10 other nations in science and math.  Meanwhile, when it comes to black students, African American students trail not only almost every other developed nation abroad, but they badly trail their white classmates here at home — an achievement gap that is widening the income gap between black and white, between rich and poor. 

“We’ve talked about it, we know about it, but we haven’t done enough about it.  And this status quo is morally inexcusable, it s economically indefensible, and all of us are going to have to roll up our sleeves to change it.” 

READ Full Transcript of The President’s Address

WATCH Video of The President’s Address

The Obama Administration has made Wall Street reform a top priority since day one, and it will now become a reality.  Wall Street Reform will hold Wall Street accountable, protect and empower American consumers with the strongest consumer protections ever, increase transparency in financial dealings — including in the derivatives market — and end taxpayer bailouts once and for all.  

1. Holding Wall Street Accountable

The financial crisis was the result of a fundamental failure from Wall Street to Washington. Wall Street took irresponsible risks that they didn’t fully understand and Washington did not have the authority to properly monitor or constrain risk-taking at the largest firms. When the crisis hit, they did not have the tools to break apart or wind down a failing financial firm without putting the American taxpayer and the entire financial system at risk.

Taxpayers Will Not Have To Bear The Costs Of Wall Street’s Irresponsibility. If a firm fails in the future it will be Wall Street - not the taxpayers - that pay the price.

“Proprietary Trading” Will Be Separated From The Business of Banking. The “Volcker Rule” will ensure that banks are no longer allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. Responsible trading is a good thing for the markets and the economy, but firms should not be allowed to run hedge funds and private equity funds while running a bank.

Ending Bailouts. No firm should be “Too Big To Fail”. Reform will constrain the growth of the largest financial firms; restrict the riskiest financial activities; and create a mechanism for the government to shut down failing financial companies without precipitating a financial panic that leaves taxpayers and small businesses on the hook.

2. Protecting American Families From Unfair, Abusive Financial Practices

Too many responsible American families have paid the price for an outdated regulatory system that left our financial system vulnerable to collapse and left families without adequate protections. We must protect and empower families with the strongest consumer protections ever.

An Independent Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Will Set And Enforce Clear, Consistent Rules For The Financial Marketplace. A single consumer bureau will set clear rules of the road and ensure that financial firms are held to high standards. For example:

• For families who want to buy a home: The piles of forms needed for a regular mortgage can be overwhelming, and many brokers have taken advantage of that confusion to give borrowers loans they didn’t need or couldn’t afford. The new consumer financial protection bureau will take steps to consolidate and simplify with plain language two overlapping and sometimes inconsistent federal mortgage forms. The bureau will, for the first time, provide ongoing federal oversight of both nonbank companies and banks in the mortgage market and protect borrowers from unfair, deceptive or other illegal mortgage lending practices.
• For families with credit cards: The new consumer financial protection bureau will enforce the new credit card law signed by President Obama that bans rate hikes on existing balances and other unfair practices. For families who have used credit cards to get by when times are tight, the law will give them clarity on the interest rates they are charged.
• For families caught by unexpected overdraft fees: Many households have been automatically enrolled in expensive overdraft programs. These programs can hit consumers with costly overdraft fees for even the smallest purchases. For example, the FDIC found that the average overdraft charge for a single purchased item-like a $2 cup of coffee-is $30 at banks with assets more than $1 billion. The new consumer financial protection bureau will enforce new rules that give consumers a real choice as to whether to join expensive overdraft programs so that they are not unknowingly charged unnecessary fees. [FDIC, "FDIC Study of Bank Overdraft Programs" (November 2008) at Table IV‐3]

Until Now, There Have Been Seven Different Regulators With Authority Over The Consumer Financial Services Marketplace. Accountability has been lacking because responsibility is diffuse and fragmented. In addition, many mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers were almost completely unregulated. All that will change..

3. Closing The Gaps In Our Financial System

We desperately needed to modernize our financial system and take the necessary steps to close the gaps in our system and eliminate regulatory arbitrage.

Reform Will Address the Gaps that led to Regulatory Failure - At Its Peak, The “Shadow Banking System” Financed About $8 Trillion In Assets. In the lead-up to the financial crisis, our regulatory system as a whole failed. One of the greatest weaknesses of our financial system was the risk that built up in the “shadow banking” system where there was explosive growth in a range of financial firms that acted much like banks - but operated without oversight.

Market Discipline Was Not Enough. Relying on market discipline to compensate for weak regulation and then leaving it to the government to clean up the mess was not a good strategy for economic growth nor financial security.  

Our Financial System Will Have Clear Accountability. There is no substitute for vigorous, consistent enforcement of the laws governing the financial system. But each regulator should have a clear mission and the authority to execute that mission.

• Gaps and loopholes that allowed large firms like AIG to avoid strong, comprehensive federal oversight will be eliminated.
• To achieve accountability, one entity will have the responsibility and the authority to supervise the most complicated firms.

4. Reform is Critical to Market Certainty and Stable Growth

Reform is central to providing a foundation for stable growth. Our financial system is most competitive when our system is stable, resilient and transparent.
 
Reforms Will Make The Financial Industry And The Markets They Operate In Stronger, Safer, And More Competitive.

• Clearer accountability in supervision and regulation so that financial firms can operate under a coherent set of rules and expectations without the current regulatory arbitrage opportunities that allow some firms to “game the system.”
• Stronger capital buffers to increase the ability of financial companies to weather the ups and downs of financial markets.
• Lesser concentration of risk among the largest financial firms so that any one firm can fail without creating a domino effect throughout the entire financial system that jeopardizes jobs, family savings and the entire economy .
• Greater transparency in the derivatives market that will make the system safer by providing regulators with the data they need to manage systemic risk and help ensure the integrity of financial markets so we can prevent future AIG-like disasters.

Comprehensive Reform Will Help Generate Innovation And Economic Growth. A key test of a strong financial system is whether or not it effectively channels savings to finance future innovation. The old system produced waves of credit bubbles and real estate booms followed by severe financial shocks and damage. Under reform, the financial system serve not only short-term profits, but long-term growth, entrepreneurship, and savings.

Leading the Way on International Financial Reform. We have worked in parallel with our international partners to make sure that as we move to reform and strengthen our financial system at home, the G20 is moving to implement reforms to achieve a level playing field.

WATCH Informational Video

READ Fact Sheet: Financial Reform Plan Fights for African Americans

LEARN The Top Ten Things You May Not KnowYou May Not Know About The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

DECODE Common Financial Terms

Learn more about the sponsorship opportunities available

 On July 21, President Obama signed yet another landmark piece of legislation putting the middle class above the special interests that for so long had a stranglehold on America’s government.  At the signing ceremony, the President laid out the historical perspective as well as the perspective focused on our common future:

Passing this bill was no easy task.  To get there, we had to overcome the furious lobbying of an array of powerful interest groups and a partisan minority determined to block change.  So the members who are here today, both on the stage and in the audience, they have done a great service in devoting so much time and expertise to this effort, to looking out for the public interests and not the special interests.  (Applause.)  And I also want to thank the three Republican senators who put partisanship aside — (applause) — judged this bill on the merits, and voted for reform.   We’re grateful to them.  (Applause.)  And the Republican House members.  (Applause.)  Good to see you, Joe.  (Applause.) 

Now, let’s put this in perspective.  The fact is, the financial industry is central to our nation’s ability to grow, to prosper, to compete and to innovate.  There are a lot of banks that understand and fulfill this vital role, and there are a whole lot of bankers who want to do right — and do right — by their customers.  This reform will help foster innovation, not hamper it.  It is designed to make sure that everybody follows the same set of rules, so that firms compete on price and quality, not on tricks and not on traps.

It demands accountability and responsibility from everyone. It provides certainty to everybody, from bankers to farmers to business owners to consumers.  And unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you’ve got nothing to fear from reform.  (Applause.) 

Now, for all those Americans who are wondering what Wall Street reform means for you, here’s what you can expect.  If you’ve ever applied for a credit card, a student loan, or a mortgage, you know the feeling of signing your name to pages of barely understandable fine print.  What often happens as a result is that many Americans are caught by hidden fees and penalties, or saddled with loans they can’t afford. 

That’s what happened to Robin Fox, hit with a massive rate increase on her credit card balance even though she paid her bills on time.  That’s what happened to Andrew Giordano, who discovered hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees on his bank statement — fees he had no idea he might face.  Both are here today.  Well, with this law, unfair rate hikes, like the one that hit Robin, will end for good.  (Applause.)  And we’ll ensure that people like Andrew aren’t unwittingly caught by overdraft fees when they sign up for a checking account.  (Applause.) 

With this law, we’ll crack down on abusive practices in the mortgage industry.  We’ll make sure that contracts are simpler — putting an end to many hidden penalties and fees in complex mortgages — so folks know what they’re signing. 

With this law, students who take out college loans will be provided clear and concise information about their obligations. 

And with this law, ordinary investors — like seniors and folks saving for retirement — will be able to receive more information about the costs and risks of mutual funds and other investment products, so that they can make better financial decisions as to what will work for them. 

So, all told, these reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protections in history.  (Applause.)  In history.  And these protections will be enforced by a new consumer watchdog with just one job:  looking out for people — not big banks, not lenders, not investment houses — looking out for people as they interact with the financial system.

READ THE TRANSCRIPT

 Spending three days at the nation’s Capitol, the National Conference of Black Mayors and the Hip Hop Caucus held a series of events June 28-30 to advance their mission to green American cities.

The “Green The City Advocacy Summit” was the first event held in NCBM’s partnership with the Hip Hop Caucus on a special year-long campaign to increase the engagement of youth in the NCBM Green The City Initiative. The Initiative aims to assist African American mayors in putting their cities on a path to long-term economic and environmental sustainability through

the development and implementation of a green city plan. Local initiatives must be reinforced by federal commitments through legislation, resources and provisions-and thus the Mayors took their message to Capitol Hill.

During a June 29 press conference in the Congressional Triangle, Mayors called on the Senate to chart a new direction for America’s future through comprehensive climate and energy legislation that will provide for the sustainability of our nation’s most vulnerable communities. CBC Chair Rep. Barbara Lee, and CBC Energy and Environment Task Force Co-Chairs Reps. Emanuel Cleaver and G.K. Butterfield joined the group in their call for Senate action. The Mayors also met with Senators to explore available tools and resources to assist their implementation of jobs plans and sustainability programs.

The summit concluded June 30th with a meeting at the White House to discuss the Obama Administration’s energy agenda and its intersections with communities of color. The meeting’s discussion centered on the Administration’s energy agenda, its vision for a clean energy future, current and developing energy policies, local environmental and economic issues and challenges, and the funding and partnership opportunities that can address and resolve these challenges.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson; White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Deputy Director David Agnew and Associate Director Michael Blake; Deputy Director for Energy, Environment and Technology Greg Nelson in the Office of Public Engagement; and Department of Education Assistant Secretary Glenn Cummings made remarks on behalf of the Administration.

Representatives were also present from the Office of Urban Affairs; Recovery Implementation Office; the Council on Environmental Quality; EPA Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization; Department of Energy; and the Department of Interior.

NCBM Executive Director Vanessa R. Williams and Hip Hop Caucus President Rev. Lennox Yearwood headed the delegation of 19 mayors.

Topics discussed included the Administration’s Green Cabinet, EPA’s priorities and a mechanism to facilitate the implementation of federal programs; relief efforts in the BP oil disaster, the moratorium of oil drilling and its impact on families and the local economies along the Gulf Coast; green jobs and workforce development, the Recovery Through Retrofit initiative, Sustainable Communities Partnership Program, Clean Water Act enforcement and ARRA funding challenges and successes.

The Mayors shared best practices for leveraging local resources and engaging with the EPA’s Local Government Advisory Committee in order to support their local development initiatives.

One of the major problems identified by all of the mayors was the seemingly intractable barrier local governments face in receiving federal funding distributed from the state level.

As a solution, Administrator Jackson shared that the EPA is willing to set a meeting with state representatives to discuss the flow of funding. She also noted that such a meeting is scheduled with the EPA, Mayor Helenor Bell of Haynesville, Ala. and Alabama state representatives to discuss the funding flow to Haynesville.

“This Administration has so much we want to do with you, but we have to keep working at it. We want you to know the commitment is there,” concluded Administrator Jackson. 

DOWNLOAD NCBM Special Report Sustainably Green 0710

WATCH Monroe Mayor Jamie Mayo Interview with MSNBC Andrea Mitchell

LISTEN NCBM Executive Director Vanessa Williams Interview with The Jeff Santos Show AM 1510 Revolution Boston

Remarks by Jeffrey Crowley, Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy

Today, I am pleased to announce the release of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States. The release of the strategy reaffirms President Obama’s commitment to fighting this domestic epidemic.

From the time that we first heard about the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) thirty years ago through today, HIV has become a global pandemic with more than 33 million people living with HIV around the world. In the United States, approximately 56,000 people become infected each year, more than 1.1 million Americans are living with HIV, and nearly 600,000 Americans have been lost to this disease. Unless we take bold actions, we anticipate a new era of rising infection rates and even greater challenges in serving people with HIV.

President Obama believes that we must re-focus public attention on ending the domestic HIV epidemic. The vision for the National HIV/AIDS Strategy is simple:

The United States will become a place where new HIV infections are rare, and when they do occur, every person, regardless of age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic circumstance will have unfettered access to high-quality, life-extending care, free from stigma and discrimination.

To make this a reality, the Obama Administration is launching a comprehensive plan for fighting HIV in our country. The strategy has three primary goals:

• Reducing the number of new infections;
• Increasing access to care and optimizing health outcomes for people living with HIV; and
• Reducing HIV-related health disparities.

Today, Secretary Sebelius also announced that $30 million of the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention Fund will be dedicated to the implementation of the NHAS. This funding will support the development of combination prevention interventions. It will also support improved surveillance, expanded and targeted testing, and other activities.

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has taken extraordinary steps to engage the public to evaluate what we are doing right and identify new approaches that will strengthen our response to the domestic epidemic. The Office of National AIDS Policy hosted 14 HIV/AIDS Community Discussions with thousands of Americans across the U.S., we reviewed suggestions from the public via the White House website, we organized a series of expert meetings on several HIV-specific topics, and we worked with Federal and community partners who organized their own meetings to support the development of a national strategy.

To develop the Strategy, we convened a panel of Federal officials from across government to assist in reviewing the public recommendations, assessing the scientific evidence for or against various recommendations, and making their own recommendations for the Strategy.

The Strategy provides a roadmap for moving the Nation forward in addressing the domestic HIV epidemic. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all activities to address HIV/AIDS in the United States, but is intended to be a concise plan that will identify a set of priorities and strategic action steps tied to measurable outcomes.

The release of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy is just beginning. The job of implementing this strategy does not fall to the Federal government alone. Success will require the commitment of all parts of society, including State and local governments, businesses, faith communities, philanthropy, the scientific and medical communities, educational institutions, people living with HIV, and others. We are appreciative of the high level of engagement we have received from so many stakeholders to date.

 DOWNLOAD National HIV AIDS Strategy

(Detroit Free Press/July 6, 2010)

Yet the improvement appeared to slow in May compared with April, the AP’s Economic Stress Index shows. And concerns are arising that the nation’s recovery is losing momentum.

Economic stress declined month to month in 33 states in May, aided by lower unemployment. In April, by contrast, stress had eased in every state except two - and in 90% of the nation’s 3,141 counties.

Bankruptcy rates around the nation also inched up in May.

“As the government’s stimulus winds down and as long as the labor market remains weak, an acceleration in the economy is probably not in the cards,” said David Huether, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers. “If I were a betting man, I’d bet the economy won’t double dip into recession, but it will grow at a much slower pace.”

Still, conditions did improve in most of the nation in May. Just under 40% of counties were deemed economically stressed in May, compared with 42% in April. Job gains in manufacturing, farming and hotels and restaurants helped some of the counties where stress declined the most, according to the AP’s analysis.

The AP’s Economic Stress Index calculates a score for each county and state from 1 to 100 based on unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptcy rates. A higher score indicates more economic stress. Under a rough rule of thumb, a county is considered stressed when its score exceeds 11.

The AP’s index found the average county’s Stress score in May was 10.3, down from 10.6 in April. It was the lowest score since November’s 10.2.

For the first time since the AP began the stress index in May 2009, the four states that have shown the most stress each month - Nevada (21.75 in May), Michigan (16.22), California (16.14) and Florida (15.26) - improved from the prior month. These states benefited from declining unemployment and foreclosure rates.

Arizona rounded out the list of the five worst-performing states in May with a Stress score of 15.04. That was a slight increase from April.

The best-performing states in May were North Dakota (4.03), South Dakota (5.21), Nebraska (5.83), Vermont (6.49) and Iowa (7.5).

Despite better conditions in May, analysts say the economy’s rebound might be stalling as it enters the second half of this year, when the benefit of federal stimulus spending will start to fade.

A growing number of economists are scaling back their growth forecasts. Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan Chase, for instance, thinks the economy will grow at a 3.2% annual pace in the July-to-September quarter, down from a previous 4% estimate.

The improvement in May occurred before renewed concerns about the economy emerged last month. Consumer confidence, for instance, tanked in June, and stock prices have sunk. Businesses remain wary of ramping up hiring.

Still, the economy’s bright spots - namely manufacturing - were evident in May.

Among the states, Michigan, Vermont, Idaho (11.3), Illinois (13.7) and Iowa saw the biggest month-to-month decreases in stress. Economists pointed to gains in manufacturing jobs, which helped reduce unemployment in those states. Counties in the Midwest led the nation in improvement for a second straight month.

Louisiana (8.63), Oklahoma (8.61), Pennsylvania (10.49), Mississippi (12.58) and Arizona (15.04) suffered the biggest month-to-month increases in economic stress. Higher unemployment was the main reason.

The stress in the Gulf states of Louisiana and Mississippi resulted from the BP oil spill. People who lost jobs as a result of the spill are likely to be compensated for their lost income from funds BP announced in June.

Pennsylvania’s problems are related, in part, to a slowing in the manufacture of chemicals. Oklahoma’s are a result of moderating energy prices. And Arizona’s stress is likely related to continued damage from the housing bust.

Economic stress was higher in May than a year ago in 35 states, particularly in the West. Over the past year, stress has grown the most in Idaho, Montana (7.89), Nevada, New Mexico (9.48) and Utah (10.81).

In Utah’s case, the state experienced the housing boom about a year and a half behind the Sun Belt states of Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada. That explains why the housing bust and foreclosure crisis hit Utah later than it did others, said James Wood, director of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Utah.

Counties of at least 25,000 residents that were the most stressed in May were Imperial County, Calif. (31.74); Yuma County, Ariz. (29.14); Lyon County, Nev. (27.30); Merced County, Calif. (24.55); and Nye County, Nev. (24.45).

The economically healthiest counties were Ward County, N.D. (3.35); Burleigh County, N.D. (3.66); Grand Forks, N.D. (4.02); Ellis County, Kan. (4.13); and Brown County, S.D. (4.25).

Daniel Ortega (from left), a Phoenix lawyer and immigration advocate; Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox; and the Rev. Warren Stewart are among speakers at a July 6 news conference discussing the federal suit challenging Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 (photo credit: The Arizona Republic)

(The Arizona Republic/July 7, 2010)

A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday will be the most significant test yet for Arizona’s new immigration law, but its effects are likely to go beyond simply determining the law’s constitutionality.

The high-profile battle over illegal immigration could sway voters, helping determine whether Democrats retain or lose their majority in Congress. It could be a boon for Arizona Republicans who have supported the law. Some vulnerable Democrats urged the Obama administration not to file the suit.

The outcome of the case also could fuel or shut down efforts now under way to replicate the law in more than a dozen other states.

The lawsuit brought more national attention to the Grand Canyon State, which has weathered protests and boycotts since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on April 23. Supporters say that they will successfully defend the suit and that it will hold up like other immigration-related laws that have faced court challenges the past few years.

The new suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix against Arizona and Brewer. It claims the immigration law “will conflict and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration-enforcement priorities and objectives” and divert resources from the “dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority.”

The federal suit seeks a court injunction to keep the law from taking effect July 29. It wants to prevent Arizona from enforcing the law and asks the court to find certain sections of the legislation null and void. Senior Justice Department officials said they expect a federal judge to take up the motion for an injunction as early as next week.

The legislation makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person’s legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.

Legal challenges

The latest lawsuit is the sixth lawsuit filed in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1070. It will be treated no differently than the previous five in terms of process, court filings and hearings.

The plaintiffs in the five other lawsuits include law-enforcement officers, municipalities, illegal immigrants, clergy, civil-rights groups and non-profit organizations. Those lawsuits have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton. The Department of Justice wants its case moved under Bolton as well.

Bolton has scheduled a hearing July 15 in one of the previously filed challenges of the law. Another hearing is to be held July 22 in another case. Each hearing will include opposing arguments to either dismiss the particular lawsuit or to halt the law before it goes into effect.

Bolton could issue a ruling immediately after each hearing, or wait and issue a ruling after hearing arguments in several of the cases.

Stephen Montoya, an attorney who filed one of the five earlier lawsuits, said the Department of Justice filing won’t change the arguments in his case. But he thinks it will help strengthen them.

“All five of the plaintiffs who filed lawsuits have been arguing that 1070 violates federal law and undermines federal policies regarding immigration,” he said. “Now, the federal government is speaking for itself and saying the same thing . . . which is much more persuasive.”

Previous suits

Although Tuesday’s lawsuit has the distinction of the federal government being its plaintiff, many of the legal issues it raises have been previously tested by lawsuits challenging other Arizona laws targeting illegal immigrants.

In the past six years, Arizona voters and legislators have approved a series of measures designed to have an impact on illegal immigration. The measures require voters to produce identification at the polls, deny bail to felons suspected of being in the country illegally and hold employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers.

Citizens and civil-rights advocacy groups challenged those measures, asserting that the laws are inconsistent with federal immigration laws or are superseded by federal laws and the federal government’s authority over immigration policy.

Judges have consistently found in favor of the state, although two of the cases are on appeal and a third is pending in federal court.

Andrew Thomas, a candidate for Arizona attorney general who helped write some state laws as Maricopa County attorney, said those cases gave him confidence in the constitutionality of SB 1070.

“The law is on our side,” he said.

The case challenging Arizona’s employer-sanctions law will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court later this year, based in part on the argument that federal immigration law trumps Arizona’s right to create an immigration-enforcement measure masquerading as a business-enforcement law.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the employer-sanctions case, and the fact that SB 1070 goes well beyond that in asserting the state’s right to legislate on immigration issues, could make the state’s previous victories irrelevant, said Terry Goddard, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate who as Arizona attorney general has defended the state in previous immigration lawsuits.

“The area of immigration and securing the borders is a . . . different area,” Goddard said. “You can’t, by analogy, say, ‘Well, we can do it for employers, therefore you can do it for the border.’ ”

The employer-sanctions law also takes advantage of the state’s right to license businesses, which is a clear right, Montoya said.

Federal law says states cannot penalize someone for hiring an illegal immigrant except in reference to business licensing, which is what the state law does.

“This wasn’t constructed to fill in an exception to a federal law like the employer-sanctions law was,” he said. “And this was not a common-sense kind of law like one saying if you want to vote you should have to show your ID.”

Political fallout

The response to Tuesday’s filing has been politically explosive, and local experts say that’s for good reason.

Polls indicate a majority of Arizona voters support SB 1070.

“This puts a lot of Democrats in a very awkward position,” said Michael O’Neil, president of Tempe-based public-opinion research firm O’Neil Associates. “Opposition to SB 1070 is a short-term losing proposition.”

Democratic U.S. Reps. Harry Mitchell, Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords joined Republicans in issuing statements opposing the federal lawsuit, calling it “distracting.”

O’Neil said the new lawsuit ensures immigration will remain on the local and national political agenda for the foreseeable future.

“In the short term, that’s a winner for the Republicans,” he said. “Although in the long term, the Republican Party is alienating themselves from the Hispanic community, and they’ll come to regret that.”

Rodolfo Espino, an assistant professor of political science at Arizona State University, said Democratic candidates such as Kirkpatrick, Giffords and Mitchell are being allowed to distance themselves from the Democratic Party line to get re-elected in 2010.

“There’s some parallel to how conservative Democrats from the South were given some leeway by the national Democratic Party during the civil-rights era to do what they needed to do to maintain a numerical majority,” Espino said.

But more politically secure politicians didn’t hesitate to show their resolve.

Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, and Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, sponsors of the immigration law, attacked the Obama administration.

“It is simply Washington putting their policy on the backs of this lawsuit, trying to prevent the enforcement of our laws and continue their non-enforcement policy,” Pearce said.

Police response

Regardless of what, if any, changes the federal suit brings to SB 1070, police agencies said Tuesday that they are proceeding as if the law takes effect on July 29.

Few law-enforcement officials were surprised the lawsuit was filed. It has been rumored and discussed in police circles for weeks. But until an injunction is issued to stop the law from taking effect, the agencies have no choice but to spend the next three weeks preparing officers to enforce it.

“This is another court challenge to 1070, and in the past several weeks, we have continued to approach 1070 training with the purpose of getting it done and in place when and if the law takes effect,” said Bart Graves, an Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesman.

Some law-enforcement officials declined to speak directly about the issue, but Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio joined a coalition of state, local and federal authorities discussing both sides of the issue.

Arpaio called a news conference to denounce the federal government’s decision. He also boasted that the Justice Department has yet to produce any results from a 15-month investigation into civil-rights violations in the Sheriff’s Office.

But 10 other law-enforcement officials filed declarations in court in support of the Justice Department’s lawsuit. Among them were Phoenix Public Safety Manager Jack Harris, Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor, Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada and a collection of current and former federal officials.

All had the same theme: SB 1070 diverts resources from police agencies and puts local police in the difficult position of enforcing complex federal immigration law.

READ THE LAWSUIT